Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
NiceLilEarner

Vi's Try To Strangle Planning Reform At Birth

Recommended Posts

National Trust warns planning changes could tear up countryside

Against the odds, the government have come up with a draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which appears to acknowledge that existing planning rules are a block on development. The section on housing is interesting:

The Government’s key housing objective is to increase significantly the delivery of new homes. Everyone should have the opportunity to live in high quality, well designed homes, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live. This means:

• increasing the supply of housing

• delivering a wide choice of high quality homes that people want and need

• widening opportunities for home ownership; and

• creating sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, including through the regeneration and renewal of areas of poor housing.

Of course, these fine words have to be set alongside the governments abolition of local authority house building targets, and the 'Nimbys Charter' provisions in the Localism Bill

The usual suspects (National Trust, Council for Protection of Rural England) are weighing in with scare stories about concreting over the countryside (in fact, Green Belt areas will continue to enjoy complete protection - its the sh**y 'horsiculture' wastelands at urban edges, not covered by green belt designation that will be affected). The NT has already been given an unchallenged platform during yesterdays Today programme, and the message will no doubt be amplified on progs like Countryfile.

The link to the DCLG consultation webpage is here: DCLG Consultation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National Trust warns planning changes could tear up countryside

Against the odds, the government have come up with a draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which appears to acknowledge that existing planning rules are a block on development. The section on housing is interesting:

Of course, these fine words have to be set alongside the governments abolition of local authority house building targets, and the 'Nimbys Charter' provisions in the Localism Bill

The usual suspects (National Trust, Council for Protection of Rural England) are weighing in with scare stories about concreting over the countryside (in fact, Green Belt areas will continue to enjoy complete protection - its the sh**y 'horsiculture' wastelands at urban edges, not covered by green belt designation that will be affected). The NT has already been given an unchallenged platform during yesterdays Today programme, and the message will no doubt be amplified on progs like Countryfile.

The link to the DCLG consultation webpage is here: DCLG Consultation.

They can't have it both ways. You can't let 3 million people into the country in less than 10 years and not expect there to be an increase in the demand for property.

I really wish we didn't have to "pave over" places but because of stupid decisions like this we do. Besides, it's okay for VI groups they have a home no doubt with a lovely view of fields but many don't and these people need to stay out of the friggin' way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't have it both ways. You can't let 3 million people into the country in less than 10 years and not expect there to be an increase in the demand for property.

I really wish we didn't have to "pave over" places but because of stupid decisions like this we do. Besides, it's okay for VI groups they have a home no doubt with a lovely view of fields but many don't and these people need to stay out of the friggin' way!

The british countryside was destroyed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years ago.

Woodland is the natural climax vegetation over much of the UK. Indeed, the greater part of the UK was historically covered with woodland until large-scale forest clearances instigated by human activities began around 5000 years ago.

Perhaps 90% of the UK's forest cover has been lost over the past 5000 years; forests and woodlands today make up about 10% of the land surface (around 2.7 million hectares). The percentages of forest cover in each UK country are: England 7%; Scotland 15%; Wales 12%; Northern Ireland 6%.

Not quite 'concreted over' but very nearly. The 'countryside' is a man-made artificial landscape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National Trust warns planning changes could tear up countryside

Against the odds, the government have come up with a draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which appears to acknowledge that existing planning rules are a block on development. The section on housing is interesting:

Of course, these fine words have to be set alongside the governments abolition of local authority house building targets, and the 'Nimbys Charter' provisions in the Localism Bill

The usual suspects (National Trust, Council for Protection of Rural England) are weighing in with scare stories about concreting over the countryside (in fact, Green Belt areas will continue to enjoy complete protection - its the sh**y 'horsiculture' wastelands at urban edges, not covered by green belt designation that will be affected). The NT has already been given an unchallenged platform during yesterdays Today programme, and the message will no doubt be amplified on progs like Countryfile.

The link to the DCLG consultation webpage is here: DCLG Consultation.

Isn't something like 60% of all new development on brownfield sites? Scare stories are abound that the "countryside is being ripped up"...what tosh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be hilarious if it were not such an utter disgrace.

The-green-belt-007.jpg

London's green belt could be sacrificed to Los Angeles-style urban sprawl in the name of economic growth under sweeping reforms to the planning system unveiled by the government this week, the National Trust has warned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where does this "LA sprawl" scaremongering come from? Is it the Guardian?

Surely the NT would not sink to such lows?

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chl/w-countryside_environment/w-planning-landing.htm

The Government's planning reforms, could lead to unchecked and damaging development in the undesignated countryside on a scale not seen since the 1930s.

New plans published by the Government contains a core presumption that the default answer to development will be 'yes'.

la.jpg

Los Angeles urban sprawl

© ATIS547

genericcountry.jpg

Under government proposals large

areas of the countryside have no

protection from development

© NTPL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well some view an "LA style urban sprawl" as decent sized homes with some decent space around them. Funny how they use perhaps the world's most developed nation as an example of how not to do things. Go figure :rolleyes:

Instead what we get in the UK is 90% of the population squeezed into 10% of the land. While 10% of the population exploit the NT and planning dept's to enjoy 90% of the land exclusively for themselves. No, that's not selfish at all. It's to protect our countryside don't you know.

Ain't Britain great....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a deep cultural antipathy in this country towards urban living, in contrast to the continent (for instance the Netherlands and Italy), where families choose to live in city centres. Here, our urban centres are made over to the suits and the shoppers during the day (who make their escape during rush hour), then abandoned to drunks and ASBOs after dark. The most iconic dwelling type is the penthouse flat; an escape from it all for the super-rich.

In a situation where towns and cities are economic and social dumping grounds, the default pattern for those who can afford it is to flee to the margins, or (if you have really coined it) escape into a life of rural gentility. Add in the draconian 'Green Belt' planning constraints, and the vested interests created by the post- war home ownership boom, and we have the present miserable condition where positive planning for growth and housing for the next generation can be represented across our media as a fundamental attack on the foundations of our civilisation. And I havent even mentioned the angry letters Prince Charles will be writing to ministers on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well some view an "LA style urban sprawl" as decent sized homes with some decent space around them. Funny how they use perhaps the world's most developed nation as an example of how not to do things. Go figure :rolleyes:

Instead what we get in the UK is 90% of the population squeezed into 10% of the land. While 10% of the population exploit the NT and planning dept's to enjoy 90% of the land exclusively for themselves. No, that's not selfish at all. It's to protect our countryside don't you know.

Ain't Britain great....

The way I see it, we should protect:

- National Parks

- Transport corridors (current and proposed)

- Top grade agricultural land

- Genuinely historic architecture, but not 'anything more than 50 years old to be kept pristine', and certainly not entire cities (cf. Bath)

- Flood plains and areas about to be eroded into the sea (common sense)

Outside of that, it should be taken that planning permission will be granted by default unless someone has a fantastically good reason why not.. unlike the current system. I'd also say that development should not automatically be restricted to something that will 'fit in' to the surroundings. As (Blizzard) already said , the countryside is an artifical construct to start with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The british countryside was destroyed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years ago.

Not quite 'concreted over' but very nearly. The 'countryside' is a man-made artificial landscape.

Even that's subject to question as the whole country gets scraped back to bare rock every major ice age!

Most of the rolling hills down to London in Essex, Herts and Sarf Suffolk were scraped off the sea area around the WASH and Norfolk 'flatlands' (now covered in peat/marsh) and the mud/rock was dumped as the glacier retreated!

The chalk hills around Norfolk used to be Jurassic coral islands/barrier reefs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should start a counter movement by stating for every normal sized house built on green belt land, we are willing to demolish unnecessary big houses with more land than is resonably required near the green belt, thus turning the land back into more green belt land.

Sort of like planting 2 trees for every 1 we chop down, we could build 2 or 3 normal sized houses for each massive over sized mansion we demolish.

How can they argue agains this? Ok so its their house that will be destroyed but its for the good of our country side!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should start a counter movement by stating for every normal sized house built on green belt land, we are willing to demolish unnecessary big houses with more land than is resonably required near the green belt, thus turning the land back into more green belt land.

Sort of like planting 2 trees for every 1 we chop down, we could build 2 or 3 normal sized houses for each massive over sized mansion we demolish.

How can they argue agains this? Ok so its their house that will be destroyed but its for the good of our country side!

Good idea.

The NT could help by turning the larger, more attractive ones into flats.

Houses-of-the-National-Trust-Outstanding-Buildings-of-Britain.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a deep cultural antipathy in this country towards urban living, in contrast to the continent (for instance the Netherlands and Italy), where families choose to live in city centres. Here, our urban centres are made over to the suits and the shoppers during the day (who make their escape during rush hour), then abandoned to drunks and ASBOs after dark. The most iconic dwelling type is the penthouse flat; an escape from it all for the super-rich.

This isn't helped by city centre council tax bills typically being higher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea.

The NT could help by turning the larger, more attractive ones into flats.

Actually, I've seen it argued at the NT is acting strangely by not allowing the rebuilding or restoration of ruins. If you look at the history of the average castle, it's a case of 'Built, re-built, burnt down, rebuilt, extended, blown up, rebuilt, converted into something else, then ruined.. and somehow that process has to come to a complete stop now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to these VI's you would think that Britian has been almost entirely built on, and that these proposals are intended to concrete over the last remaining scrap of countryside.

However, the fact is that Britain still consists mainly of empty fields. Try it for youself... look at Britian on Google earth - it's a big, green, mainly empty space. Then, pick a spot at random, and zoom in to 1-2km, and chances are all you'll hit is a patch of nothing but empty green fields. I've just tried it 10 times.... and 9 times I hit nothing but emptry space, and once got a screen with mainly empty space and part of a small village. And these fields always look empty, with no crops or livestock on them. You could build millions more large houses, with a good amount of land/gardens around them, and not make a dent in the amount of empty countryside we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to these VI's you would think that Britian has been almost entirely built on, and that these proposals are intended to concrete over the last remaining scrap of countryside.

However, the fact is that Britain still consists mainly of empty fields. Try it for youself... look at Britian on Google earth - it's a big, green, mainly empty space. Then, pick a spot at random, and zoom in to 1-2km, and chances are all you'll hit is a patch of nothing but empty green fields. I've just tried it 10 times.... and 9 times I hit nothing but emptry space, and once got a screen with mainly empty space and part of a small village. And these fields always look empty, with no crops or livestock on them. You could build millions more large houses, with a good amount of land/gardens around them, and not make a dent in the amount of empty countryside we have.

Yet driving around the quieter parts of England (outside the more remote corners) it's noticeable that the country is more densley populated than, say, France. So don't try to pretend you can build more without it having any effect whatsoever. Draw a dozen small blobs over a painting and you've hardly touched any of it but you've still ruined it. The high level of development in England (much less so Scotland and Wales) is very obvious. For remote and quiet and attractive you need a much greater area than a 1-2 km sided square. Find places more than 15 miles from the nearest city, 10 miles from the nearest town, 5 miles from the nearest village.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I signed their online petition and added this comment:

"Yes, please stop and rethink planning reforms because they don't go far enough. There's a housing crisis in Britain that is making life miserable for the younger generations in this country. Over-restrictive planning regulations are constricting the supply of good-quality housing and act as a dead weight on the growth prospects for the UK. The leadership of the National Trust should be ashamed that they're using members donations to run a nationwide campaign of NIMBYism rather than using the funds to maintain historical sites for which is what the money was given. This campaign is making me seriously reconsider my long-standing membership and support for the organization."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet driving around the quieter parts of England (outside the more remote corners) it's noticeable that the country is more densley populated than, say, France. So don't try to pretend you can build more without it having any effect whatsoever. Draw a dozen small blobs over a painting and you've hardly touched any of it but you've still ruined it. The high level of development in England (much less so Scotland and Wales) is very obvious. For remote and quiet and attractive you need a much greater area than a 1-2 km sided square. Find places more than 15 miles from the nearest city, 10 miles from the nearest town, 5 miles from the nearest village.

It might be worth thinking about the difference between land at the edge of an already-existing city or town and land in the middle of nowhere. Allowing a town of 150,000 people to grow to 200,000 at its edges will have a much smaller marginal impact than plonking a new town of 50,000 in the middle of nowhere. Also, the demand for housing tends to be in already-existing towns and cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to these VI's you would think that Britian has been almost entirely built on, and that these proposals are intended to concrete over the last remaining scrap of countryside.

However, the fact is that Britain still consists mainly of empty fields. Try it for youself... look at Britian on Google earth - it's a big, green, mainly empty space. Then, pick a spot at random, and zoom in to 1-2km, and chances are all you'll hit is a patch of nothing but empty green fields. I've just tried it 10 times.... and 9 times I hit nothing but emptry space, and once got a screen with mainly empty space and part of a small village. And these fields always look empty, with no crops or livestock on them. You could build millions more large houses, with a good amount of land/gardens around them, and not make a dent in the amount of empty countryside we have.

They could, but they won't. Like where I live, they stopped giving people front gardens to save space...So instead of a nice front garden you get....a car park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be worth thinking about the difference between land at the edge of an already-existing city or town and land in the middle of nowhere. Allowing a town of 150,000 people to grow to 200,000 at its edges will have a much smaller marginal impact than plonking a new town of 50,000 in the middle of nowhere. Also, the demand for housing tends to be in already-existing towns and cities.

Although will the policy of placement of new buildings, depend on the county council, or does it come from higher up? In my area (Somerset), they say it makes more sense developing around larger towns (be it Frome, Taunton, etc..) rather than small villages and hamlets...I agree with them...it reduces cross-county driving to work, the basic infrastructure is there...etc...it also also, in certain respects those little villages from being swampt of traffic and people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although will the policy of placement of new buildings, depend on the county council, or does it come from higher up? In my area (Somerset), they say it makes more sense developing around larger towns (be it Frome, Taunton, etc..) rather than small villages and hamlets...I agree with them...it reduces cross-county driving to work, the basic infrastructure is there...etc...it also also, in certain respects those little villages from being swampt of traffic and people...

Take your general point but development of small/medium villages builds communities on a more human and sustainable scale.

I’ve lived in a South Midlands village since the mid 1980’s when the population was about 4000, currently around 5500.

The almost 40% expansion has come from the standard big-builder mix of semi’s and detached on the northern edge of the village and the most recent building has seen smaller plots, less open space and much less off-road parking.

All in all, it’s a good place to live and bring up a family although the density of the new-builds means there are few places for kids to play and the distance from the village centre for newcomers means more car use to access the local shops and an increasing sense – they say - of relating more to the out-of-town shopping and entertainment facilities in the nearby market towns.

Talking to friends and neighbours who’ve generally lived here 10+ years, I don’t know anyone who would oppose planning permission for, say, another 500 homes and maybe more.

More people mean we’re more likely to keep the primary school, library and shops so everyone benefits.

Sure, there would be opposition to more building on the flood plain (a few dozen houses were built there and millions are now being spent to provide “defences”) but that aside, a couple less fields of rape seed seems a small price to pay for providing homes and keeping a semi-rural community alive.

So who’s against a significant number of new builds?

(i) Yes, there are a few long-term residents worried that the “character” of the village will change. Sure, some of them are unreconstructed NIMBYS who want to pull up the drawbridge behind them but even they can be swayed by newbuilds that are not crammed together and constructed with no thought to how people might garden, tinker with a car on a drive or just have room enough to breathe. That said, if you live in a mellow stone, six-bedroom house worth upwards of a million then maybe you have different sensibilities!

(ii) The local council. They “…see no pressing need…” to “….allow significant expansion of the housing stock…” despite the fact they contradict themselves by crowing about “affordable homes” on the developments they do approve.

(iii) The residents’ association in part of the new development area. Oddly, the association seems to comprise those people who bought the 4 & 5 bedroom detached properties (distinguished by their gardens being large enough for the heat from the barbecue not to damage the plastic skirt round the trampoline).

Just one village in one area and for all I know completely atypical but on a wholly unscientific basis I would be surprised if more than 2%-3% would seriously object to more home building.

Improve the quality of the homes, spread them out a little, insist on larger gardens/room for allotments and generally make them places to live in rather than be part of a mythical ladder and that 2%-3% will decrease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although will the policy of placement of new buildings, depend on the county council, or does it come from higher up? In my area (Somerset), they say it makes more sense developing around larger towns (be it Frome, Taunton, etc..) rather than small villages and hamlets...I agree with them...it reduces cross-county driving to work, the basic infrastructure is there...etc...it also also, in certain respects those little villages from being swampt of traffic and people...

Although in this particular area, some half decent roads and, ideally, railways wouldn't go amiss as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although in this particular area, some half decent roads and, ideally, railways wouldn't go amiss as well.

True..the main issue is that that build all this settlement "in more remote" areas of the country, and then cant be bothered to forward plan...I know that there's been a battle to reinstate Chard Junction back on the mainline (didn't Corby have the same issue?), there's going to be mass scale building work in and around the area (Chard, Ilminster, Crewkerne), but Natwork Rail sold the land off to a haulage company..

Don't even get me started on the A303...

There should be "sustainable" development in villages, not putting 1,000 houses in a village of a population of 4 or 5 hundred - which has been known

Edited by Dave Beans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although will the policy of placement of new buildings, depend on the county council, or does it come from higher up?

Most of the new houses that do go through will be built on land belonging to councillors and their close friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the new houses that do go through will be built on land belonging to councillors and their close friends.

I vaguely remember a story about 20 years ago whereby a building firm managed to wangle PP on some land, and miraculously, some of a certain council's planning team team turned up in new Ford Orions..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.